Kerala High Court
Sacred Heart General Hospital vs Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam, ... on 13 January, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
WA NO. 1890 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:3284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 23RD POUSHA, 1946
WA NO. 1890 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.23771 OF 2024 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
SACRED HEART GENERAL HOSPITAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GREEN GARDENS, CHERTHALA
P.O., ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 688524
BY ADVS.
PAUL JACOB
SHERU JOSEPH
MATHEW THOMAS
NIKITTA TRESSY GEORGE
DIPAK CHERIAN ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM, AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM
WAGES ACT, 1948
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER OFFICE, CIVIL STATION PO, VIDYA
NAGAR, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691013
2 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, CHERTHALA (SOUTH)
MINI CIVIL STATION BUILDING, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA,
INDIA, PIN - 688524
BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SABEENA P ISMAIL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1890 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:3284
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
Present writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the
Single Bench dated 14.11.2024 in WP(C) No.23771 of 2024
whereby the challenge laid to the preliminary order, Ext.P9, MWA
No.32 of 2012, has been dismissed. Appellant-petitioner was in
default of depositing the minimum wages with the competent
authority for the period June 2011 to November 2011. Section 20 of
the Minimum Wages Act deals with the procedure empowering the
competent authority to initiate action in accordance with law. The
same reads as under:
20. Claims.--(1) The appropriate Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, appoint
[any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or any
officer of the Central Government exercising
functions as a Labour Commissioner for any region, or
any officer of the State Government not below the
rank of Labour Commissioner or any] other officer with
experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a
stipendiary Magistrate to be the Authority to hear and
decide for any specified area all claims arising out
of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages [or
in respect of the payment of remuneration for
days of rest or for work done on such days under clause
(b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 13
or of wages at the overtime rate under section 14,] to
employees employed or paid in that area.
(2) [Where an employee has any claim of the nature
referred to in sub-section (1)], the employee
himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a
registered trade union authorised in writing to act on
his behalf, or any Inspector, or any person acting with
the permission of the Authority appointed under
sub-section (1), may apply to such Authority for a
direction under sub-section (3): Provided that every such
2025:KER:3284
application shall be presented within six months from the
date on which the minimum wages [or other amount]
became payable:
Provided further that any application may be admitted
after the said period of six months when the
applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient
cause for not making the application within such
period.
[(3) When any application under sub-section (2) is
entertained, the Authority shall hear the applicant
and the employer, or give them an opportunity of being
heard, and after such further inquiry, if any, as it
may consider necessary, may, without prejudice to any
other penalty to which the employer may be liable
under this Act, direct--
(i) in the case of a claim arising out of payment of less
than the minimum rates of wages, the
payment to the employee of the amount by which the
minimum wages payable to him exceed the
amount actually paid, together with the payment of such
compensation as the Authority may think fit,
not exceeding ten times the amount of such excess;
(ii) in any other case, the payment of the amount due to
the employee, together with the payment
of such compensation as the Authority may think fit, not
exceeding ten rupees,and the Authority may direct
payment of such compensation in cases where the excess
or the amount due is paid by the employer to the
employee before the disposal of the application.]
(4) If the Authority hearing any application under this
section is satisfied that it was either malicious
or vexatious, it may direct that a penalty not exceeding
fifty rupees be paid to the employer by the person
presenting the application.
(5) Any amount directed to be paid under this section
may be recovered--
(a) if the Authority is a Magistrate, by the Authority as if
it were a fine imposed by the Authority
as a Magistrate, or
2025:KER:3284
(b) if the Authority is not a Magistrate, by any Magistrate
to whom the Authority makes
application in this behalf, as if it were a fine imposed by
such Magistrate.
(6) Every direction of the Authority under this section
shall be final.
(7) Every Authority appointed under sub-section (1) shall
have all the powers of a Civil Court under
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the
purpose of taking evidence and of enforcing the
attendance of witnesses and compelling the production
of documents, and every such Authority shall be
deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section
195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898).
2 As per sub Section 2 of Section 20, it is evident that a
complaint can be filed within six months from the date of the action
with a proviso that, it can be extended. Meaning thereby, the
provisions of Section 5 of the limitation Act, in absence of any
embargo as provided under Section 29 of the Limitation Act, was
applicable. The complaint was filed on 7.6.2012. The period of six
months, for a claim from June 2011 to November 2011, could be
taken from the last month of November 2011 and not from the June
2011. Therefore the six months would have expired in May 2012
whereas there was a delay of 7 days. That delay could not have
been fatal on the ground that in the complaint, the applicant had
reserved the right to amend or add or make any alteration in the
applications. The aforementioned application was opposed by an
objection petition. On perusal of the same, it is evident that the
2025:KER:3284
objection qua jurisdiction as well as the limitation was not taken.
The contention of the appellant-writ petitioner is that the
preliminary order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner is
without jurisdiction, as, the amendment caused in the Minimum
Wages Act in 20.10.2017 empowered the Deputy Labour
Commissioner only thereafter and before that Labour Commissioner
was empowered. However, the learned Single Bench did not
consider the aforementioned aspect. Therefore, there is a fallacy
and abdication.
3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted
that the delay could not be fatal much less the order impugned has
been passed only when the amendment was caused and therefore
the Deputy Labour Commissioner was empowered to pass the
order. Even otherwise the delay of 7 days cannot be fatal. It is
only a preliminary order and the objection can always be taken
when the matter is decided on merits.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
appraised the paper book. On perusal of the provisions of the
Minimum Wages Act, it is evident that a complaint can be filed
within a period of six months. The period of default is June 2011 to
November 2011. By taking the period of six months from November
2011, 31st May was the last date of expiry of six months whereas the
2025:KER:3284
complaint has been filed only on 7.6.2012. There was a delay of
only 7 days. With a liberty to amend, the authority rightly took the
cognizance of the matter. The objection qua jurisdiction does not
also merit acceptance for the reason that the amendment caused
was in 2017 whereas the order was passed after the amendment.
We do not find any illegality and perversity in the order. No ground
for interference is made out.
Writ appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
SD/-
sab K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
2025:KER:3284
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Translated copy of
TRANSLATED COPY OF PAGE 1 OF EXHIBIT P1 IN
Page 1 of Exhibit
WP(C) 23771 OF 2024.
P1 in WP(C)
23771/2024
Translated copy of TRANSLATED COPY OF EXHIBIT P2 IN WP(C)
Exhibit P2 in WP(C) 23771/2024.
23771/2024
Legible copy of
LEGIBLE COPY OF PAGE 1 OF EXHIBIT P5 IN
page 1 of Exhibit
WP(C) 23771/2024.
P5 in WP(C)
23771/2024.
Legible copy of
LEGIBLE COPY OF PAGE 9 OF EXHIBIT P5 IN
page 9 of Exhibit
WP(C) 23771/2024.
P5 in WP(C)
23771/2024
Translated copy of TRANSLATED COPY OF EXHIBIT P6 IN WP(C)
Exhibit P6 in WP(C) 23771/2024.
23771/2024
Translated copy of TRANSLATED COPY OF EXHIBIT P6(A) IN WP(C)
Exhibit P6(a) in 23771/2024.
WP(C) 23771/2024.
